IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2014 Between:
P. Jhansi Laxmi, W/o. Sampath Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Flat No.102, H.No.11-25, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad & 2 others .. Petitioners AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gases, Office at Shahstri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011.
.. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2014 ORDER:
On 15.09.2013, paper notification was issued calling for applications for enlistment of LPG Distributors. The petitioners herein responded to the said notification for location of LPG Distributorship in Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 18.11.2013 was the last date for submission of applications. The petitioners applications were received by the concerned clerk, who on the envelope covers of the petitioners applications as well as in the register maintained for the purpose recorded the time of submission of receipt of applications as 17.35 hours and their names are included under the heading ‘Delayed Receipt’. The petitioners were, accordingly, informed by the Senior Area Manager that the applications were received at 17.35 hours i.e., after cut-off date and time. Therefore, the applications were returned with the envelopes. The intimation letter also disclosed “with contents including the DD/PO no.416411/16.11.13 for Rs.500/-.”
2. On the next day, the respondents received three envelopes from the petitioners. They have, accordingly, entered the receipt of such envelopes at 15.30 hours on 19.11.2013. These envelops were returned to the petitioners. On the envelopes, it was written as DD by the respondents indicating that the envelopes contained demand drafts concerning the applications submitted by the petitioners on 18.11.2013 and they are returned. The petitioners submitted representation on 13.06.2014 informing the respondents that the applications were submitted in time and that the envelops which were received by the respondents on 19.11.2013 contained the plans for the site where the office was sought to be located and that since the applications were submitted in time by enclosing the requisite DDs, the applications should be accepted. Since the petitioners were not given any reply on their applications and on the other hand, the respondents are finalizing the selections for enlistment of a dealer, this writ petition is instituted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted complete applications along with the DDs for Rs.500/- and the applications were submitted on the last day within the time available, whereas erroneously the time of receipt was written as 17.35 hours and, therefore, the rejection of the applications on the ground that the applications were submitted after the time stipulated is over is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the advertisement indicated that the last date would be 18.11.2013 before the closure of office hours and no time was informed and since petitioners were not aware that the closure of the office hours would be 05.15 PM, they have submitted the applications before 05.30 PM. Their applications ought not have been rejected on this silly ground. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the applications contained DDs also. The endorsement given to the petitioners also discloses that the DDs were enclosed along with the applications and contrary to what is given in the endorsement, the respondents cannot say that DDs were not enclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in Column 10 of the applications, required particulars of the property should be given and it also asks for the dimensions of the plot on which show room was to be located. Since the documents enclosed to the applications did not contain the brief of the dimensions, the same was sent on the next day and the said covers did not contain the DDs. It was erroneously written as containing DDs and, therefore, rejection of the applications of the petitioners by respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. By subjecting the petitioners to selection process, no prejudice would be caused.
4. Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the register maintained by the office would clearly disclose that the applications of the petitioners were received at 17.35 hours. Similarly, some other applications were also submitted. This would clearly show that the applications were submitted beyond the time stipulated in the advertisement. The normal closing hours of the office is 17.15 hours and, therefore, beyond the working hours of the office, the applications were submitted. What is mentioned in the endorsement written in the applications was only the DD numbers which were written in the application forms, but it does not mean that the DDs were enclosed. The DDs were sent by the petitioners on the next day, the envelopes of which were received at 15.30 hours. On opening of the envelopes, the concerned authority has seen that it contained the DDs and the same were returned by making an endorsement on the covers. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that even assuming that the petitioners’ contention is correct that the covers contained DDs, firstly it ought to have been written on the covers and secondly the fact that the site plan was not enclosed to the applications would also show that the application forms submitted by the petitioners were deficient. The table enclosed in Column 10 of the application forms requires dimensions and the supporting document, which deals with the property, whether it is leased or owned, should also have the dimensions described therein and that the documents enclosed without plan would show that the applications submitted were incomplete. Admittedly, the petitioners have submitted the applications after the time stipulated and the applications did not enclose the DDs and the same DDs were sent subsequently.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents produced the original register containing the list of applications received for this purpose and the Inward Register, dated 19.11.2013, which disclose receipt of three envelopes sent from the petitioners through DTDC Courier service.
6. The records would disclose that the petitioners have not submitted the applications within the time stipulated. It is not a case where applications of petitioners are rejected only on the ground of delay in submission of applications by few minutes. As it turned out now that the applications did not contain the relevant DDs in support of the amount of fee payable with the application. Even if the contention of the petitioners is to be believed and that the subsequent envelopes sent by courier did not contain the DDs and DDs were already enclosed to the applications, but contained only the sketches describing the dimensions of properties where offices are required to be located, this would also show that the applications submitted on 18.11.2013 did not contain the relevant documents necessarily to be enclosed as per Column 10 of the application form. Either way, the applications were not in complete shape.
7. When the mistakes pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents are glaring and admittedly, the applications submitted by the petitioners were not in time and were not in compliance with the requirements in the advertisement, the decision taken by the respondent company cannot be held as one made in arbitrary exercise of power and authority or one made deliberately to through the petitioners out of consideration. No motive is attributed to any officer to act against petitioners. No case is made out to grant writ of mandamus as sought by the petitioners in exercise of power of judicial review.
8. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 15th September, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2014 Date: 15th September, 2014 KL